Four Americans are dead, including U.S. ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. They were killed in a terrorist attack that lasted seven hours and included several desperate calls for help. But no help came.

Advertisement

Why?

Months before the fatal attack, Stevens expressed deep concern about deteriorating security for U.S. personnel inside the African country.

"There were enough indications that security was not very good there at all," Sestak said. "When you have people ask for more security, you give it to them."

To Sestak, it is as simple as that. But that didn't happen either. Why?

Sestak is no novice when it comes to these matters. He worked with the National Security Council in the Clinton White House and was a chief strategist for "Deep Blue," the Navy's anti-terrorism unit.

He knows how these tough decisions get made (and not made) at the top of the military and civilian chains of command. He also knows how screwed up things can get in the "fog of war." He is not one to quickly place blame before all the facts are in. And yet, this debacle has him shaking his head.

"This hasn't been the most commanding of performances," is the way he put it to me.

His most pressing question: "Why wasn't there a military response?"

According to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, it was because the brass in Washington couldn't get a clear understanding of what was happening on the ground.

"A basic principle," said Panetta, "is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. (Carter) Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation."

But there was some "real-time information." There were radio communications, emails and there were drones flying over the site. There were military assets within one or two hours of striking distance of the attack.

None were used.

Then there is the recent statement from President Obama, who said that the first thing he did when notified of the attack was to give a "directive" to "make sure we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to do. I guarantee you everybody in the CIA and military knew the No. 1 priority was making sure our people are safe."

Was this order from the commander in chief disobeyed?

If that was the No. 1 priority as ordered by the president of the United States, somebody sure failed to accomplish it -- or even to try.

Gen. Ham has since been relieved as head of African Command for reasons that have not been made public.

Attempts by the administration to fob this all off on our intelligence agencies are being met with skepticism, if not downright cynicism.

Weeks after the event, White House officials cited intelligence briefings that called the attack "spontaneous" and motivated by an anti-Islamic video.

Sestak, for one, seems to think this a bit too convenient. He finds it hard to believe there wasn't a "more inclusive assessment" that mentioned "organized jihadists" as the leaders of a planned terrorist attack.

That is, after all, the accepted consensus now.

The president says that an investigation into this "tragedy" is under way and we will get to the bottom of what happened.

But who would know better what happened than the president himself?

And why hasn't he told us? Was he too distracted by his re-election campaign to perform his day job of protecting American lives?

If he gave a directive to secure the consulate, let's see it. It must be in writing somewhere. If his orders to protect embassy personnel and secure the consulate weren't obeyed, who didn't obey them? And why?

Bing West, author, soldier and former assistant secretary of defense, has already come to one damning conclusion: "For our top leadership, with all the technological and military tools at their disposal, to have done nothing for seven hours was a joint civilian and military failure of initiative and nerve."

Sestak won't go that far. But he did say he doesn't know of any practical reason why some more answers haven't been given to the American people. It's been more than six weeks.

For the first two, intentionally or not, this administration misled the country about what happened in Libya that night and it's still not clear why.

"We need to have a thorough and quick investigation on this," Sestak said. And yet we're not getting it. I cannot tell you why it is taking the amount of time they say it will."

But a reasonable guess is the administration is simply stonewalling until after the election.

"If there is stonewalling, it's not right," Sestak said. "I believe in accountability and in transparency."

On this matter, from this administration, there has been precious little of either.

But this isn't going away, especially if this president is re-elected next week.

Best case scenario: A tragic embarrassment of misjudgments.

Worst? Criminal malfeasance at the highest level of government. And if that can be shown, Hurricane Sandy will have nothing on Hurricane Benghazi.

Gil Spencer's column appears Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. Check out his spencerblog every day at delcotimes.com.